Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Symphonic poems (Liszt)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:48, 27 June 2009.

Symphonic poems (Liszt)

 * Nominator(s): Jonyungk (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because after peer review and many helpful suggestions in improving this article I believe it is of sufficient quality to be considered for featured article status. Jonyungk (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Questionable neutrality (1d) to me; sentences like the following need to be either cited or removed.
 * "Particularly striking in these works is Liszt's approach to musical form."
 * "The seeming veracity of this claim"
 * "Liszt's symphonic poems became highly controversial."
 * "Such was the roar of the controversy over these works"
 * Done. All these have been either cited or changed. Jonyungk (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead and list of works lack citations (2c)
 * I'd been told in the past that the lead did not have to be cited unless a direct quote was used, as it was expected that the material summarized in the lead would be proved and cited in the article itself. Could you please clarify this? Jonyungk (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not an FAC regular (yet), so I'm not honestly sure. Perhaps someone else can jump in? Stifle (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the lead does not have to be cited. Browsing around, I found Heian Palace or Superb Fairy-wren. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 11:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A little low on images (3), although relevant and acceptable images might be hard to find for this.
 * FYI, the number of images an article has is not a factor in what makes an FA. In fact, they're not even required for GAs.  What matters is that the (however many) images are all correctly tagged and verifiable, which seems to be the case here. María ( habla  con migo ) 13:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely a solid good article, but I think it has a bit more to go before FA status. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you suggest removing the article from consideration at this time? This is not a knee-jerk reaction to your comments but a realization that there may be a grain of truth in them. Jonyungk (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not yet; other users (especially FAC regulars) may have some valuable comments that would save you the trouble next time. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments Support: Heavy copy-editing is needed throughout, I'm afraid. Some examples from the lead:
 * The first 12 were composed in the decade 1848–58...: "composed between"?
 * They helped establish...: "they" is ambiguous here since the prior sentence was only about one of the works. Be specific.
 * establish the genre of orchestral programme music—music written to illustrate an extra-musical plan derived from a play, poem, painting or work of nature—and they inspired the symphonic poems of Bedrich Smetana, Richard Strauss and others. I would suggest breaking this sentence into two, so that the inspiration for Strauss, etc., would have more effect. The repetition of music, despite being separated by an em dash, is also unfortunate.
 * Their composition...: again ambiguous; the prior sentences were about Liszt.
 * with a continual process of creative experimentation that included many stages of composition, rehearsal and revision to reach a version where different parts of the musical form seemed balanced. I suggest making this clearer: "the poems underwent a continual process... and revision". I'm also not sure that the latter part of the sentence is necessary; perhaps just add on "in order to reach balance of musical form"?
 * Liszt also provided written prefaces for nine of his symphonic poems. Remove "also".
 * ...He was aware that the public often liked to attach "stories" to instrumental music, and decided to provide his own context before others invented something else. Redundant and perhaps TMI for the lead. How about combining the first two sentences of this paragraph into something more concise, like: "Aware that the public appreciated instrumental music with context, Liszt provided written prefaces..." etc.

And more. I can't comment as to the subject matter coverage, but these examples from the lead alone show that the article needs work before it can be promoted. I suggest finding a thorough copy-editor; you may also want to read Tony's excellent guide about satisfying criterion 1a of the FA requirements. Good luck! María ( habla con migo ) 13:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, which have been taken to heart. All your suggestions for the lead section have been acted upon. Jonyungk (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: I did some minor copy-editing throughout for punctuation, typos, and basic sentence structure, so please make sure I did not misconstrue anything. I think the article has already greatly improved, although more tweaking wouldn't not hurt, as Brian notes below.  Some of the quotes may need to be revisited to make sure they follow logical quotation rules ("symphonic poems", not "symphonic poems," if the punctuation is not part of the quote).  That's as picky as picky gets for me, however.  For now I'm happy to offer my support -- very interesting article, I enjoyed reading it! María ( habla  con migo ) 17:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. :-) Jonyungk (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I was not able to give this proper attention at peer review, though I made a few comments. My general opinion, after a more careful reading, is that the article is substantially OK, but still needs quite a bit of polishing and tweaking. Here are some comments, mainly on the first substantive section but with a couple of additional points:
 * Article title: Why is the capitalisation in "Poems" justified?
 * To me it really isn't&mdash;it was already this way when I started working on the article several months ago. Would moving it to "Symphonic poems (Liszt)" mess up any of the archived or linked pages such as this one, or could I make this move with no problems? Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Page moved to Symphonic poems (Liszt) Jonyungk (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead: Dvorak should be linked, though actually I find the name repetition (Strauss and Smetana) from the first paragraph slightly jars. Would the lead suffer if the final sentence ended at "writing symphonic poems"? I don't much like "such as" clauses if they are avoidable.
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Inventing the symphonic poem
 * First sentence could be better expressed. "Were" should be "are"; in addition I would suggest: "The direct ancestors for Liszt's symphonic poems are Beethoven's dramatic overtures for stage productions of Egmont and Coriolanus, and his third Leonore overture, intended for his opera Fidelio."
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (Afterthought) By "the third Leonore overture", do you mean Leonore No. 3, which was actually, I believe, the second Leonore overture written? (There should be a reliable source for this, somewhere).
 * Yes, I mean Leonote No. 3. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Need to clarify "Their" in "Their success..." But, why did the success of this type of composition cause them to be designated as overtures? I imagine it was more the proliferation of this type of composition that led  to the need for a generic name.
 * Yes, you're right&mdash;it was the proliferation of this type of work into the concert hall. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Other, more dramatic..." The "more" sounds like a judgement and should be omitted. The second other can also go. Thus: "Other dramatic works by early- to mid-19th century composers followed..."
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the list of examples is too numerous – the point could be made with half this number. And "such as..." again; I probably use it myself, but not twice in two lines. A colon after "followed" would do just as well.
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is Hugh Macdonald? And – I dunno – "points out" lacks a bit of authority, perhaps? If Macdonald is a recognised authority, then "According to..." is OK. I also think the phrase "albeit in one movement" is awkwardly placed. Why not simplify: "...shows his desire for the single-movement form to expand from...."?
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "itself" redundant?
 * Removed. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "...a type of variation form in which one theme is transformed not into a related or subsidiary theme to the main one but into new, separate and independent themes." Quite hard to follow, and rather too much repetition. Best I can offer: "a type of variation in which one theme is transformed, not into a related or subsidiary theme  but into something new, separate and independent."
 * Done, but open to further suggestions on this point. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Penultimate paragraph: again, tendency to over-exemplify; five examples when three at most will do to secure the point.
 * Cut the list down to three. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As suggested by other reviewers, the article probably needs some copyediting throughout. The prose isn't bad, but needs finishing and polishing. I will try and come back with some more suggestions, although I will be away from Wikipedia for much of the next week. Brianboulton (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do, and thank you. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments - leaning Support Overall, this is a well-written and comprehensive article that has improved much since I last looked at it during a peer review. All paragraphs in the body (with the exception of the lead and one paragraph I'll get to in a moment) contain multiple references, and the use of images is good. I believe the article meets most of the FA criteria; I am leaning towards a support vote, but I do have a few comments first. In general, the article is well-written; I think that where it suffers is a tendency to be too academic at times for a general reader. * However, Liszt's view of the symphonic poem tended to be evocative rather than purely pictorial As this statement is in the lead, it should be easy for any reader to understand, but those without a musical background would, I think, be hard pressed to explain the difference between "evocative" and "pictorial" music. * Along with creating the symphonic poem itself, Liszt added two compositional practices to its inner workings. "adding" implies that the symphonic poem had existed without these features, but it sounds like they're all part of a package deal. Could you say something like: "Two technical features of the symphonic poem are..." * The last paragraph in the "Inventing..." section is only two sentences long; can you either expand it or tack it on to the previous para.? * You mention Walker a number of times, and though I've read this article several times now, I'm sorry to say that at a few points I found myself wondering, "Walker? Who's Walker?" - A few reminders ("Critic Walker", "music historian Walker", or something) would be nice. * Wagner was more receptive; he grasped the idea of the unity of the arts that Liszt espoused - "grasped" sounds POV. Would it be accurate to say something like "agreed with", thus giving W's opinion without evaluating it? * The "Historical importance" section is a little block-y - chunks of quotation. Can that be broken up a little bit so that it doesn't read as "He said ... then he said ... then he said..."?
 * I have rephrased this sentence to explain better to non-musical readers what is meant here. Jonyungk (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not use this wording but changed the sentence accordingly. Jonyungk (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Tacked it onto the previous paragraph. Jonyungk (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice job! It reads so much better now, I think. Ricardiana (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :-) Jonyungk (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

* Can you add a source to the beginning of the "List of works" section? Or a general footnote - "Information taken from So-and-so's blah blah blah"?</S>
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot of criticisms, but I think they are fixable within a relatively short period of time, and they don't detract from the fact that this is a very well done and interesting article. Ricardiana (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Query Why is Grove listed under MacDonald or Walker in the notes but under Sadie in the bibliography? TwilligToves (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadie is the editor of both editions of the New Grove; MacDonald and Walker are writers of individual entries in the New Grove. Jonyungk (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you put those entries in Chicago or a similar format to make that clearer? Ricardiana (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 *  Leaning towards Support. Great work, though I have a few requests;
 * Liszt held an idealized view of the symphonic poem as evocative rather than representational, and generally focused more on expressing poetic ideas rather than pictorial realism and refraining on the whole from narrative and literal description. Can you break this up. I got confused when I got to and refraining on the whole from narrative and literal description. Is this included as "generally focused more on" or "rather than". Apologies if I'm slow here.
 * Done. This section is hopefully easier to follow now. Jonyungk (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see (S.95–107) cited.
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Liszt would then correct and make changes - whats the difference between 'correct' and 'make changes'? I'd reword as 'revise'.
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats it. Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That was fast, thanks, and I'm supporting now, having enjoyed reading this over the last few days. More bits and pieces:
 * Can you flesh out Joachim Raff's image caption.
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again with the caption for Die Hunnenschlacht, can you establish a connection between the painting and the Liszt's piece within the caption.
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd cut down on direct quotes unless you are reporting an openion. Eg: the presence in the Weimar orchestra of individual virtuosi—the trombonist Moritz Nabich, the harpist Jeanne Pohl, and the violinists [Joseph] Joachim and Edmund Singer.... [Liszt] mixed daily with these musicians, and their discussions must have been filled with 'shop talk'. All until "must have been filled" is just matter of fact, easily transformed into prose.
 * I'll keep that in mind, though I didn't want to risk the possibility of a copyvio by sticking too closely to Walker's text without the safety net of quote marks. I've rewritten the passage accordingly. Jonyungk (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Got brave and rewrote all the long quotes in that section into the text. Jonyungk (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jonyungk, do you have any audio samples you could add? I have a few mp3, but I'm not sure of which recording they came from so they would likely not pass FU. Ceoil (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll check the Commons to see whether there is anything there, but since I'm still in the stone age of CDs and don't use mp3s, I don't have anything offhand. Jonyungk (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * perhalps if I uploaded a file or two, you might recognise the source? I think extracts would add greatly to the page. Ceoil (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed but don't know how to upload or make available here. Jonyungk (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I know what you're saying. Unfortunately, I don't have speakers on my computer, so I wouldn't be able to hear the extracts to identify the source. Sorry. :-( Jonyungk (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No sweat. Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for checking things out. Jonyungk (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

All other images should meet criteria. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Image comments:
 * File:Jjraffportrait.jpg without the author, can't use the given licensing tag.
 * Thannks for pointing this out. I've asked Jappalang to check this out. If he can't track anything down, I'll remove the image. Jonyungk (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would advise removing it from this article. David is correct that the PD-Old license requires the likely fact of the author's passing beyond 70 years (the identity of the etcher and to a lesser degree, the year of creation, helps to determine this).  Without such information, PD-Old fails verification.
 * I recommend replacing it with the photo this etching was based on. They are all available at http://www.raff.org/resource/gallery/01.htm.  The photo in question would be raff_11a.jpg  In fact, the photos are of the same series, taken by Mondel & Jacob of Germany.  raff_14.jpg is an etching of a photo in the series, which appears on p. 496 of Famous composers and their works (1891)  This shows that the photo was taken in 1878.  As Mondel & Jacob flourished from the mid-19th century (1840s to 1860s), they are likely to have died more than 70 years.  The photo is also available at Library of Congress (Popartmachine has a direct link to LoC's tiff here).
 * raff_1.jpg appears as one of the frontispieces of Dr. Hoch's Conservatorium zu Frankfurt am Main (1903). raff_2.jpg appears on p. 136 of The Great in Music (1900).  raff_12.jpg appears between pp. 354–355 of The Standard Concert Guide (1912).  Thus, there are 4 photos, public domain in US and source of origin, to choose from.  Jappalang (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for all this. I will replace the photo with one of the four you have identified. Jonyungk (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ←Are the images in a more or less stable state so I can re-review them? -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Jonyungk (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The images as of 27 June should all meet criteria. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments: I like the Classics, but I am not a music buff, and hence plead a near ignorance of the terms used in the studies of music. I had prepared a commentary based on the 01:31, 17 June 2009 version, but was kept getting held up by other things... (sorry). Much copyediting had been done since and many issues I had picked had been resolved, but I think there are some jargon that are still over the head for one as ignorant as me in musicology: "logic of symphonic thought in breadth and scope, if not in actual mechanics", "combine the elements of overture and symphony with descriptive elements to produce single-movement works that approach symphonic first movements in form and scale yet did not strictly obey Classical forms", are examples of what my head cannot seem to comprehend. I had to reach for the dictionary to understand "movements" as "a principal self-contained section of a large-scale work, such as a symphony".


 * I agree. Jonyungk (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've done some rewriting of the sections mentioned above so that they (hopefully) make more semse to non-musicians. I'm open to further suggestios along these lines. Jonyungk (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the jargon, I think I was thrown into the article without a context of the significance of Liszt's symphonic poems. Straight off, we are introduced to its creation. I think a brief exposition on the music scene before the first symphonic poem's creation would help. What music was predominant, what were the established conventions, which composers and critics were respected, and who was Liszt? I think that could establish at the start why the symphonic poems produced controversies in the circle (as well as giving the reader a bit of background). Jappalang (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you have identified the two principal flaws of this article, and for this I thank you. To my mind, they both need to be addressed to make the difference between this article being GA and FA. I am working on a solution to your second point in my sandbox but do not know whether this will be done before the current round of FAC discussions stops. But I think you're very right in that these points need to be addressed for this article to be passed. Jonyungk (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added a rough version of the type of introduction I think you mean and would appreciate input. Jonyungk (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments Lean to support (see last remaining queries) Support
 * The nominator had previously asked me to take a look at this article, and I am only just getting to it now. I am doing some copyediting. I am making some other comments here, but if Jonyungk doesn't get to addressing them, I may have a go myself. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * the phrase "amending sonata form with compositional devices such as cyclic form, motifs and thematic transformation" is too technical, particularly in a lead.
 * I've changed the latter part of the sentence to read "... he combined elements of overture and symphony while also amending sonata form." Should this be simplified further or the entire sentence perhaps be removed altogether? Jonyungk (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is better, and my view is that it should not be removed altogether.
 * In the Background section there appears to be a grammatical error in the Bonds quote ""Even symphonies by well-known composers of the early 19th century as..." Should this not read ""Even symphonies by SUCH well-known composers of the early 19th century as..."?
 * I can insert it in brackets&mdash;not a problem. Jonyungk (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What is a Kapellmeister?
 * Basically a combination of music director and composer in residence. Should this be changed to "music director" or simply linked? Jonyungk (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think change to music director and wikilink the words "music director" to the WP article "Kapellmeister".hamiltonstone ([[User

talk:Hamiltonstone|talk]]) 09:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * First para under "Composition process": My feeling is that there is a change in tense part way through, from (for example) "the symphonic poems do not follow a strict presentation", to (for example) "Recapitulations, where themes would normally be restated after development, were foreshortened". If I am missing an underlying principle behind the tense shift, then leave it be, but my intuitive reaction was that there should be a single tense used throughout.
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I have changed the paragraph so one tense is used throughout. Jonyungk (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * because "development" has common generic meanings in everyday use, I am not sure that it is wise to use the phrase "assume developmental proportions". First, if one applies everyday meanings of hte word development, the phrase actually makes no sense and second, the average reader would not know what the word means in a musical context.
 * Again, thanks. I have reworded both this sentence and the one preceding it so that it spells things out more clearly, but another set of eyes checking it probably would not hurt. Jonyungk (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Under "Raff's role", the phrase "his role in Weimar" is used at one point. I assume this means the role he played when Liszt was setttled at the place called Weimar (as mentioned in a previous section), but for some reason this expression confused me as a reader. I was thinking something like 'huh? The Weimar republic? Isn't it too early for that?' Yes, call me a fool, but perhaps just "his role" or, better I think, would be "the nature of their collaboration".
 * Done. Changed to "the nature of their collaboration." Jonyungk (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate it may be what a source has said, I found the implied put-down of Raff in the sentence "He also showed more than a little pride in this assumed role" to be bordering on POV. It has already been accepted that Raff was a gifted composer and had greater understanding of orchestration than Liszt. The issue is canvassed more fully in the next para and, the scholarship of Raabe notwithstanding, I have to say that my feeling was that it was Liszt who showed a lack of respect, rather than Raff showing "more than a little pride" in telling someone the orchestration was by him: it sounds like it was by him. Is there another way of putting this? Or perhaps omit the sentence "He also showed more than a little pride in this assumed role".
 * Done. The sentence is omitted. Jonyungk (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "questioned the authenticity of Liszt's orchestral music". I think this is overstating it, but I concede it is typical of western artists, their critics and biographers to be obsessed with authorship in this way. It questions the authorship of the music, not its authenticity - however I may be in a minority view on this.
 * Done. Changed to "authorship." Jonyungk (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On the same point: this section concludes that the sources say "regardless of the position with first drafts, or of how much assistance he may have received from Raff or Conradi at that point, every note of the final versions is by Liszt himself and represent his own intentions". This does not make sense. If Raff had any role at all, then it is simply not possible to say "every note of the final versions is by Liszt himself". I would suggest that either "every note of the final versions is by Liszt himself", and Raff's role was marginal (almost certainly not true) or "every note of the final versions represents Liszt's intentions" (more likely). I'm afraid my reaction to this passage was to question Raabe's impartiality.
 * Done. Went with the latter to be on the safe side.
 * I would like other editors' views (and a response from Jonyungk) on the omission of Raabe as a source for this article.
 * Raabe's work and findings are mentioned by Searle and Walker, both of whom are cited. I'm not against citing Raabe as a source&mdash;my only question is citing his book as a source when it was not used directly. Other views? Jonyungk (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but my point was slightly different. The FAC criteria include that the article "is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic". My concern is whether a thorough article on Liszt's symphonic poems would require Wikipedia editor(s) to have consulted Raabe, if he is a major scholar on these works. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Since Raabe's findings have been reported by Walker and Searle, including in the New Grove by both men, the general gist is readily available in English. Whether Raabe's work has been translated fromm German to English so as to examine it in detail is another matter&mdash;I honestly don't know if Raabe has been translated. Jonyungk (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The concluding sections are beautifully crafted.
 * Thank you. Jonyungk (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I look forward to resolving the above points and being able to support promotion of this article to FA. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Editor Jonyungk, you don't have to do everything I suggest if you don't agree - particularly as you have access to the sources and I do not. :-) And here's a last point to which my comment may apply. I just noticed the caption to the image of Raff: it is described as "Joachim Raff, who made exaggerated claims about his role in Liszt's compositional process". If the reliable sources are confident that those claims are exaggerated, and no reliable source disagrees, then that is acceptable. If any source disagrees, or if the sources do not actually use such strong language, then I would soften the tone of the caption. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement. I may seem a little too willing to make changes, but the points you bring up are good ones and I have an overriding wish to make this as user-friendly an article as possible, despite all the jargon that has cropped up in it.
 * As for the caption, both Walker and Searle state that Raff's role was exaggerated, but Walker especially can be biased, despite his excellent research; in fact, I have avoided using Eleanor Perényi's biography entirely about Raff becuase it is so rabidly pro-Lisztian. But your point is a good one. Since the article itself does not use the word "exaggerated," it may not make semse to use it in the caption either. To play it safe, I removed the word "exaggerated" from the caption. Even without that word, the caption "Joachim Raff, who made claims about his role in Liszt's compositional process" still seems to get the point across. Jonyungk (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have one further suggestion. It was an issue I didn't raise the first time through, but on re-reading, I would like to address it. The section "reception" beings "Liszt foresaw the potential controversy over these works in the context of the War of the Romantics,..." I think a couple of sentences more here, to give context, are needed, and I have implemented my proposed suggestion (in the article), but because the War of the Romantics article lacks inline cites, i don't know what you do about references:
 * "Liszt was preparing his symphonic poems during a period of great debate amongst the musicians of central Europe and Germany, known as the War of the Romantics. All admired Beethoven's work, but a conservative group, including Brahms and members of the Leipzig Conservatoire, saw his work as an unsurpassable peak. Wagner and the New German School (including Liszt), in contrast saw Beethoven's innovations as merely a new beginning in music. In this climate, Liszt foresaw the potential controversy that his symphonic poems would elicit, writing..." hamiltonstone (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I like what you've done and you're right, the article needs context at that point, but we're also opening a can of worms here. The trick is to say something without letting the worms get too far out of the can. Walker talks quite a bit about the War of the Romantics and there may be something usable in the New Grove. Let me see what I can come with as to tweaking and attribution. Jonyungk (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Im done here and have switched to support, and am confident any tweaking needed for that new intro I've done will be OK. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Much of the prose is beautiful, but could do with an independent run-through for polishing.
 * Redundant "also" in first para.
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "To capture these dramatic and evocative qualities while achieving the scale of an opening movement, he combined elements of overture and symphony while also amending sonata form." I wondered whether "... and symphony in a modified sonata design" would be better, linguistically and conceptually. I hesitated at the use of the word "amend", which is repeated in the section "Inventing the symphonic poem".
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And Walker's distinguishing of "modify" and "develop" is unexplained, and probably wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.
 * I tried explaining it in the following paragraph.
 * There was a lot of puff around in the 1850s about sonata form, and too much has been made of its casting in terms of binary distinctions since. There's a problematic "Liszt amended sonata form by adding two compositional practices [i.e., cyclic form and thematic transformation]" (my italics). Yet it is openly admitted 10 seconds later that neither was new, and both were children of the previous classical period. I'm concerned at the claim that "Liszt perfected the creation of entire formal structures through the use of these two concepts"—I think Beethoven, Schubert and Mozart would have scoffed at that.
 * The point is that they did not use thematic transformatio or cyclic form as a regular practice&mdash;they were exceptions rather than the rule. With Liszt they became a regular practice. On a slightly related note, Walker mentions that, "[o]n the general question of cuts, it is true to say that wherever Liszt recommends them he tended to lose conventional development and preserve metamorphosis" (Walker, Weimar, 323 footnote 37).
 * You might consider toning down these more cut-and-dried claims from the main text and the rather long quotation from Walker Vol. 2, and modifying the last sentence ... "the creation of significantly longer formal structures ..."; isn't it the extension of the duration of sonata form that he managed? Beethoven and Mozart, of course, were doing the same in their own way (Mozart, as a simple example, by mode mixture, especially of the home key in the exposition—see K503i). Can Liszt's contributions be seen as part of gradual and inevitable trends rather than as the ownership of discontinuities? Tony   (talk)  15:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's how Walker follows the section quoted:
 * ... Liszt's "reply" to the classical symphony, as we have seen, was the symphonic poem, a form he invented. Briefly, his work showed three departures:
 * 1. He invented the single-movement "cyclic" structure which rolled the separate movements of the sonata into one. In this, Liszt was only carrying on a procedure established by Beethoven, in whose works&mdash;the Fifth Symphony, for example&mdash;certain movements are not only linked but actually reflect one another's context.
 * 2. He perfected the "transformation of themes" technique, in which the contrasting ideas of a work are developed from a single musical idea.
 * 3. He believed that the language of music could be fertilized by the other arts, poetry and painting in particular. He popularized the concept of "programme music," and so began a controversy that still goes on today.
 * Could some of this be included either instead of or in addition to what is currently in the article to better explain Liszt's intentions and practices? Jonyungk (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: You have dealt with some earlier points I raised, and the article has improved since then due to your responses to other reviewers' comments. There is one sentence that's bothering me: "In the 1830s, concert halls were few, and opera houses were mainly for the orchestra" What does this mean - "opera houses were mainly for the orchestra"? Weren't they mainly for the productions of operas? Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but can you clarify? Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What about this: "In the 1830s, concert halls were few, and orchestras served mainly in the production of operas&mdash;symphonic works were considered far lower in importance"? Jonyungk (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.